My Letter to LDWF Commission on Tripletail Regulation

[Reggoh]

No response to me from any of them

["W"]

Yea its freaken sad that they are lost for words!!!

[AceArcher]

no response

[sparkyc4]

Anyone ever get a response on this?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by sparkyc4

Anyone ever get a response on this?

no response

[Smalls]

You want a response from the Commission? Show up in person. Theh've shown tome and time again that showing yoir face and commenting will get a response and hold more weight than sending passive-aggressive letters about draconian sanctions and how they are scared of the future.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[MathGeek]

I've shown up in person over other issues, just couldn't make this meeting.

The LWC is polite, and they politely ignore sportsmen's suggestions unless they are backed by CCA, as the tripletail limit was.

A few sportsmen at the meetings does not trump the cash and influence of CCA, especially when it comes to more fishing restrictions. Notice how CCA backed the increase in license fees. Its a quid pro quo they got going on, and the average fisherman is getting hosed.

[Renegade]

Originally Posted by biggun

Guys.. 35 letters to our commission members about the TT limits will not cut the mustard.. We would need 1000's!!!

Just saying..

Would 1000s of the same letter really make a difference? People should at least write their own letters and have something sensible to say. Otherwise, this is just spam. Junk mail.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

I've shown up in person over other issues, just couldn't make this meeting.

The LWC is polite, and they politely ignore sportsmen's suggestions unless they are backed by CCA, as the tripletail limit was.

A few sportsmen at the meetings does not trump the cash and influence of CCA, especially when it comes to more fishing restrictions. Notice how CCA backed the increase in license fees. Its a quid pro quo they got going on, and the average fisherman is getting hosed.

Oh, I'm sorry, is the $14 saltwater license breaking your bank?

My God, we have some of the lowest license fees in all of the country. Let's not whine about that.

Funny, the one meeting I went to they sure didn't ignore the public. They took the comments into consideration, and actually changed the season dates and times for the shrimp season based on overwhelming public comment.

Do they make the best decisions all the time? Maybe not. But maybe they don't believe in taking a liberal approach like you do. Not everyone agrees with that. How liberal is liberal enough? Where do you draw the line?

I know a few of them personally that lean towards being more conservative in terms of regulation and management.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Funny, the one meeting I went to they sure didn't ignore the public. They took the comments into consideration, and actually changed the season dates and times for the shrimp season based on overwhelming public comment.

Do they make the best decisions all the time? Maybe not.

When have they changed their minds on an issue CCA was pushing and decided against the CCA-backed proposal due to public comments?

Originally Posted by Smalls

But maybe they don't believe in taking a liberal approach like you do. Not everyone agrees with that. How liberal is liberal enough? Where do you draw the line?

I know a few of them personally that lean towards being more conservative in terms of regulation and management.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Sportsmen's liberties in pursuing and harvesting game should only be restricted when there is sound and compelling scientific data demonstrating a true conservation need. Regulations should not be based on irrational fear that the resource might not remain for future generations; they should be based on sound scientific data showing the resource cannot be sustained for future generations under current management practices.

It is not CONSERVATIVE to restrict sportsmen's liberties in pursuing and harvesting game without sound and compelling data demonstrating a true conservation need.

LWC has screwed LA Sportsmen over and over again at CCA behest making bad decisions without data showing a true conservation need.

[Smalls]

Idk, I don't track every freaking thing CCA backs. That wasn't my point.

Funny **** is, you ***** about them caving and not going with science, but the meeting I was at they went against the science and went with public opinion.

So which is right? Should they represent the public, or go hy the science? You can't have both, and they are a public agency. They represent CCA membership as well. Maybe the CCA was more vocal on the tripletail matter than anyone else, just as the majority was more vocal in favor of unified statewide openings for shrimp season, as opposed to those who wanted them to leave it alone.

They cave to the majority. Doesn't matter what the situation or what the science. They aim to please the most vocal constituents who have the most power to hurt them or cause them trouble.

How many people are CCA members vs those that oppose CCA? This seems like a simple thing to understand..a public agency that has never been known for making decisions based solely on science. Anyone with half a brain knows that is how that agency has always operated...BASED ON PUBLIC OPINION! Look at anything. Turkey seasons, duck seasons, shrimp seasons, limits, etc. Whoever holds the most influence gets what they want. Doesn't matter if its CCA, shrimpers, oystermen, or southwest Louisiana duck hunters. If you are the most vocal, you will likely get your way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Idk, I don't track every freaking thing CCA backs. That wasn't my point.

Funny **** is, you ***** about them caving and not going with science, but the meeting I was at they went against the science and went with public opinion.

So which is right? Should they represent the public, or go hy the science? You can't have both, and they are a public agency. They represent CCA membership as well. Maybe the CCA was more vocal on the tripletail matter than anyone else, just as the majority was more vocal in favor of unified statewide openings for shrimp season, as opposed to those who wanted them to leave it alone.

They cave to the majority. Doesn't matter what the situation or what the science. They aim to please the most vocal constituents who have the most power to hurt them or cause them trouble.

How many people are CCA members vs those that oppose CCA? This seems like a simple thing to understand..a public agency that has never been known for making decisions based solely on science. Anyone with half a brain knows that is how that agency has always operated...BASED ON PUBLIC OPINION! Look at anything. Turkey seasons, duck seasons, shrimp seasons, limits, etc. Whoever holds the most influence gets what they want. Doesn't matter if its CCA, shrimpers, oystermen, or southwest Louisiana duck hunters. If you are the most vocal, you will likely get your way.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Reckon u forgot all about the surveys the commission threw out and did what they wanted regarding duck season. Basically told the duck hunting public to F off.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

Reckon u forgot all about the surveys the commission threw out and did what they wanted regarding duck season. Basically told the duck hunting public to F off.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

No, not at all. If I recall right, and I believe I even pointed this out at the time, a handful of people showed up and said they wanted the earlier dates in the coastal zone. Between that and some of those guys representing SWLA hunters and knowing what they wanted, that is what they did.

Hence my inclusion of the "SWLA duck hunters" as one of those vocal groups.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by Smalls

No, not at all. If I recall right, and I believe I even pointed this out at the time, a handful of people showed up and said they wanted the earlier dates in the coastal zone. Between that and some of those guys representing SWLA hunters and knowing what they wanted, that is what they did.

Hence my inclusion of the "SWLA duck hunters" as one of those vocal groups.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

U don't remember right. There was a huge survey that we all participated in for nothing

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

U don't remember right. There was a huge survey that we all participated in for nothing

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

*** are you talking about? Of course I remember the damn survey that I ALSO PARTICIPATED IN!! My point, if you could freaking read, is a handful of people showed up to the Commission meeting from SWLA that wanted the earlier dates. The Commission also had other people in their ears about earlier dates. They CHOSE to listen to the VOCAL group that appeared over the survey results. They also took into consideration the fact that they had pushed the opener back the season before to appease another group!

This was no different than the shrimp season situation. The proposed dates were based on data that LDWF compiled. A dozen or so shrimpers showed up, voiced their opinion, and got it changed.

They are going to give more weight to a group showing up and voicing their opinion. You and MG and anyone else can argue all day that that is not right, that it should be based on data or hunter opinion or whatever, but that does not change the fact that they have proven time and time again that they are going to give weight to someone that stands at a podium in front of them on the first Thursday of the month.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

*** are you talking about? Of course I remember the damn survey that I ALSO PARTICIPATED IN!! My point, if you could freaking read, is a handful of people showed up to the Commission meeting from SWLA that wanted the earlier dates. The Commission also had other people in their ears about earlier dates. They CHOSE to listen to the VOCAL group that appeared over the survey results. They also took into consideration the fact that they had pushed the opener back the season before to appease another group!

This was no different than the shrimp season situation. The proposed dates were based on data that LDWF compiled. A dozen or so shrimpers showed up, voiced their opinion, and got it changed.

They are going to give more weight to a group showing up and voicing their opinion. You and MG and anyone else can argue all day that that is not right, that it should be based on data or hunter opinion or whatever, but that does not change the fact that they have proven time and time again that they are going to give weight to someone that stands at a podium in front of them on the first Thursday of the month.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Big negative. They didn't listen to a vocal group of public citizens, they listened to a couple of their own commission members that wanted their own agenda. It basically boiled down to one name, bottom line. Survey was ignored, as well as people I know who showed up to meetings with the same opinions as the overwhelming survey results.

All politics here and always will be.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

Big negative. They didn't listen to a vocal group of public citizens, they listened to a couple of their own commission members that wanted their own agenda. It basically boiled down to one name, bottom line. Survey was ignored, as well as people I know who showed up to meetings with the same opinions as the overwhelming survey results.

All politics here and always will be.

Exactly, I'm done with dis Smalls dude. He's obviously biased

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Idk, I don't track every freaking thing CCA backs. That wasn't my point.

Funny **** is, you ***** about them caving and not going with science, but the meeting I was at they went against the science and went with public opinion.

So which is right? Should they represent the public, or go hy the science? You can't have both, and they are a public agency.

It is folly to think science provides a definitive answer for every public policy question in wildlife management.

Even when the science is done well and there is plenty of data, all science does is provide estimates for the possible ranges of sustainable harvest and the body of regulations likely to lead to harvests within the sustainable ranges.

This still leaves a lot of room for public policy makers to adjust seasons, limits, and other regulations to apportion the harvest among stakeholders, and to decide where within the reasonable range of sustainable harvest they want to the regulations to target in a given season or year.

I tend to prefer regulatory structures that tend toward an even split of harvests between commercial and recreational interests when dealing with resources sufficiently abundant to support commercial harvests and toward regulatory structures that prohibit or severely limit commercial harvests of resources that are not sufficiently abundant to support thriving commercial markets. But how the available resources are allocated is a purely political rather than scientific matter.

Consider the recent crab shortage. I would like to see the commercial harvesters bear more of the burden of the needed harvest reductions. But I'd also like to see the supply available for harvest increased by allowing larger harvests of black drum and other management improvements that can help more crabs reach adulthood in the first place. Good management does not just divide the pie, it figures out how to make a bigger pie. That requires much more attention to habitat and the larger food web.

[Smalls]

Keep preaching to the choir.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk